More than 300 rivers drain into

[RonPurewal]

Another question, could you please give an example where we have to use GREATER/(the word for opposite of GREATER) for a numerical quantity and where we use MORE for a numberical quantity?


Thanks alot!

Some insight is here:
standard-rule-for-using-greater-than-vs-more-than-t4000.html

For a question as general as this one, your best bet is to use Google. Just search for a phrase in quotes"”e.g., "is greater than" (including the quotes)"”and then collect a bunch of examples.
If you see a phrase in action, you'll learn to use it much better (and you'll learn much more quickly) than if you try to learn a bunch of rules.

[lemonperb]

In context, it's describing the preceding action/clause: "...LB holds more than %20 of the xxxx".

It can't just describe "%20 of the world's fresh water", because we can't write that "X amount of water is more than these lakes". That's nonsense.

We can, on the other hand, write "LB holds more than these lakes (do)". So that's what the modifier represents.

The use of these modifiers to represent entire clauses is common. See #86 in OG 13th (#83 in OG 12th).

Hello Ron,
I have a question from what you explained above.
As you wrote, choice A can be simplified into "LB holds more than these lakes (do)"
Why can the verb "do" be eliminated after the second subject "all the North American Great Lakes combined"?

Is it similar to:
-I eat apple faster than you.----compare two subjects
-I eat apple faster than you do.----compare the verbs

Comparing either the subjects or the verb makes sense in the sentence. So "do" can be removed. Am I wrong?

[RonPurewal]

-I eat apple faster than you.----compare two subjects
-I eat apple faster than you do.----compare the verbs

You're still comparing the actions. (The first sentence is not saying that I am faster than you; it's saying only that I'm the faster eater of apples.)

Likewise, in this sentence you're still comparing how much water the different bodies hold, even if "do" does not appear.

[RonPurewal]

In comparisons, you don't generally need to repeat stuff that's the same on both sides"”unless such repetition is necessary to avoid ambiguity.

As a result, the exact things being compared often don't appear in the second half of a comparison"”because those are the things that are the same!

E.g.,
In New York, more people walk than drive to work.
We are not comparing the action of walking to the action of driving; we're comparing the numbers of people who do each.

(You could also write "the number of people who walk to work is greater than the number of people who drive to work", but that degree of wordiness is unacceptable in normal writing.
In legal or technical language, on the other hand, this kind of wordiness is perfectly normal, since it's unacceptable to sacrifice any degree of clarity.

[lemonperb]

You're still comparing the actions. (The first sentence is not saying that I am faster than you; it's saying only that I'm the faster eater of apples.)

Likewise, in this sentence you're still comparing how much water the different bodies hold, even if "do" does not appear.

In comparisons, you don't generally need to repeat stuff that's the same on both sides"”unless such repetition is necessary to avoid ambiguity.

As a result, the exact things being compared often don't appear in the second half of a comparison"”because those are the things that are the same!

E.g.,
In New York, more people walk than drive to work.
We are not comparing the action of walking to the action of driving; we're comparing the numbers of people who do each.

(You could also write "the number of people who walk to work is greater than the number of people who drive to work", but that degree of wordiness is unacceptable in normal writing.
In legal or technical language, on the other hand, this kind of wordiness is perfectly normal, since it's unacceptable to sacrifice any degree of clarity.

I see. Thank you for your explanation Ron!

[RonPurewal]

Sure.

[HanzZ]

Hello Ron,

If you don't mind, I have a particular question about E. I'm just wonderting whether "with more than 300 rivers draining into it" is a correct grammatical constrution.

I've seen a bunch of with + noun + verbing in official questions. However, each time when this construction appears in an choie, there are other obvious errors to help eliminate. As a result, I wasn't able to determine whether those choices are also wrong for this construction.

Could you please shed some light? Thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

I don't see anything obviously wrong with it.

But, you hit the point exactly in this part of your post:

each time when this construction appears in an choie, there are other obvious errors to help eliminate.

^^ That.

Lots of things on this test are there to distract you from errors that are simpler, more fundamental, and/or more straightforward.

For instance, in choice E, "More than xxxx" is not placed next to anything that it can sensibly modify. Modifier placement is a fundamental issue on this exam; don't let other stuff distract you from it.

[CrystalSpringston]

My understanding has been that the sentence should make sense even when "which holds 20 percent of the world's fresh water" is removed but in this case when that part is removed "More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, more than all the North American Great Lakes combined" does not make much sense. Please explain.

Thanks
Karthik

yeah, ok, i see what you're saying. that's a very good question.

here's what's going on here:
"more than all the North American Great Lakes combined" is actually a MODIFIER of "20% of the world's fresh water", which is WITHIN the first MODIFIER. therefore, it's a SUB-modifier, so to speak.

let me try to illustrate it graphically:

More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal(, which holds 20 percent of the world's fresh water(, more than all the North American Great Lakes combined)).

the blue modifier modifies stuff that's inside the orange modifier, so it falls within the orbit of the orange modifier; it MUST be removed if the orange modifier is removed (because it has nothing left to modify).

let me know whether this makes sense.

orange and blue: go gators!

Hi Ron, according to your explanation, "more than all the North American Great Lakes combined" is actually a MODIFIER of "20% of the world's fresh water", but after I read below thread, I take "comma+verbed" equivalent as "comma+ving".
In this case, "more than all the North American Great Lakes combined" should be a modifer to the preceding clause, and its logical subjective should be "which", which means Siberia's Lake Baikal.
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... 63-45.html

Pls corrrect me if I am wrong here. Just a little confused about what does the comma+verbed modify.
Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

this problem contains no 'comma + __ed' construction anywhere, so i don't understand what you are asking.

in any case, here are three correct sentences. if you understand them, then you also understand this one.
Joe eats more than his two sisters combined.
Joe eats four thousand calories per day.
Joe eats four thousand calories per day, more than his two sisters combined.

[RonPurewal]

MORE IMPORTANTLY—even if you don't understand the specifics of this one modifier, you can still solve the problem by thinking about placement. i.e., even if you can't see exactly how the modifier works, you can still tell (from context) exactly what should be next to it.

[RichaChampion]

[Deleted]

[RichaChampion]

if you are talking about choice (d) or choice (e), note that the modifiers in those choices are modifiers that modify nouns, not clauses. that's a problem in this case.

this discussion has become super confusing.

These are options D and E -

D. While more than 300 rivers drain into it, Siberia's Lake Baikal holds 20 percent of the world's fresh water, which is more than all the North American Great lakes combined.
E. More than all the North American Great Lakes combined, Siberia's Lake Baikal, with more than 300 rivers draining into it, holds 20 percent of the world's fresh water.

For Option D I understand you are talking about "which" as which is a Noun Modifier not a clause modifier.

Can you please help me to understand what about E?

If I am not misinterpreting than you want to say that this is a Noun Modifier -

" More than all the North American Great Lakes combined"

We have this as explanation for above as stated by you in another post -
when you have an INITIAL MODIFIER THAT'S NOT A CLAUSE (i.e., it doesn't have its own subject and verb), then it must modify the immediately following noun.

[RonPurewal]

the thing you're quoting is irrelevant. that's for INITIAL modifiers (= modifiers that appear at the BEGINNING of the sentence).
if you're trying to apply that principle here, don't you find it a bit odd that it mentions "the following noun"?
(:

[RonPurewal]

in any case, my best attempt at explaining what's happening with choice E is on the previous page:
more-than-300-rivers-drain-into-t5054-30.html#p103837

it's like this:
Last month I read 25 books, more than twice as many as my wife.
do you understand how that sentence works? if so, then you also understand this one, because the two work in exactly the same way.